Durham Research Online
Deposited in DRO: 07 October 2016 Version of attached le: Accepted Version Peer-review status of attached le: Peer-reviewed Citation for published item: Smith, C. and Graves, C. P. and Claydon, M. and Randerson, M. (2017) 'En route and in residence : integrating documentary and archaeological evidence for the itineraries and residences of the Medieval Bishops of Durham.', in Princes of the Church : bishops and their palaces. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, pp. 285-303. Society for Medieval archaeology monographs. (39). Further information on publisher's website: https://www.routledge.com/9781138714946
Publisher's copyright statement: This is an Accepted Manuscript of a book chapter published by Routledge in Princes of the Church: Bishops and their Palaces on 05/06/2017, available online: https://www.routledge.com/9781138714946
Additional information:
Use policy
The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.
Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.
Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United Kingdom Tel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 | Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971 https://dro.dur.ac.uk CHAPTER 20
EN ROUTE AND IN RESIDENCE: INTEGRATING
DOCUMENTARY AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE
FOR THE ITINERARIES AND RESIDENCES OF THE
MEDIEVAL BISHOPS OF DURHAM1
CAROLINE SMITH AND C. PAMELA GRAVES, WITH
MATT CLAYDON, AND MARK RANDERSON
Introduction
Considering the unique powers and authority held by the Bishops of Durham in the middle ages, surprisingly little research has been carried out into their numerous residences, with the
1 The authors wish to thank a number of colleagues in the Department of Archaeology,
Durham University: Professor Peter Rowley-Conwy for editing earlier draft and
producing the Appendix and Figure 20-2; Dr Catherine Draycott for editing and
comments; Professor Chris Gerrard for advice and support; Mr Jeff Veitch for
processing the images for publication; and Dr Louisa Gidney for comments on the
faunal remains from Darlington Manor excavations. They also wish to thank: Mr
Peter Carne, Dr Helen Drinkall, and Ms Linda Bosveld (Archaeological Services
Durham University), for help with, and permission to use, images from their
excavations and archive; and Professor David Rollason, for his encouragement,
patience, and help. exception of Durham Castle 2 and Auckland Castle.3 This paper seeks to redress that imbalance by presenting the results of new historical research into episcopal itineraries, by making innovative application of spatial access analysis to some of the residences, and by integrating the results of recent archaeological investigation, in particular that from three residences: Darlington Manor in Darlington town centre, Westgate Castle, Weardale, and
Bishop Middleham Castle (County Durham; Figure 20-1). The aim is to establish how the different residences were used, if there were particular times of the year at which specific locations might be visited, whether particular bishops had particular preferences, and if there were any significant changes through time. This approach, combining new analyses of different data sources, creates a way of recognising previously unobserved patterns in the historical narrative of the Bishops of Durham in particular, and demonstrates an holistic approach with implications for understanding other itinerant magnates in Europe in the middle ages, as well as in other periods and places.
2 Colgrave (1953a), (1953b); Simpson and Hatley (1953); Leyland (1994b), (1994a);
Brickstock (2007); Hislop (2007); Wood (2010).
3 See Raine (1852); Cornforth (1972); Cunningham (1980), (1990); Arnold and Howard
(2013).
Figure 20-1: Map of the residences of the Bishops of Durham (map: C.
Draycott; data C. Smith, C.P. Graves). Archaeologists have long been interested in the patterns of use of landscape and of places, becoming more sophisticated in their analyses with the adoption and adaptation of theory and methods from other disciplines, notably human geography and anthropology.
From the time-space geography pioneered by Carlstein,4 Pred,5 and others to the concept of task-scapes,6 and the application of phenomenology,7 and actor-network theory,8 archaeologists have sought to gain more detailed, methodologically rigorous, and historically informative insight into the occupation of landscape and building complexes, and, specifically of significance here, of habitual movement across landscapes. Approaches have engaged with both the quotidian and ritualised use of space, and it is acknowledged that in many instances the former is permeated with aspects of ritual, in the sense of both repeated routine practices, on the one hand, and reified actions imbued with significant religious, symbolic, and social meanings on the other hand.
4 Carlstein and Thrift (1977); Carlstein (1980).
5 Pred (1985).
6 Ingold (1993), (2000), (2005); Trifković (2006); with applications as diverse as the
European Mesolithic by Conneller (2010); the Amazon basin by Walker (2011);
resistance to agricultural change in northern England by Navickas (2011); and the
construction of gender in Ghana by Logan and Cruz (2014)
7 See, e.g., Tilley (1991) and critical reviews of applications to historical archaeology in De
Cunzo and Ernstein (2006).
8 Wienhold (2014). The movements of European bishops in the Middle Ages combined these functions in terms of the secular governance, administration, and judicial obligations of geographically far-flung estates and their associated tenantry; and of fulfilling their religious duties across extensive dioceses - units of territory defined by religious governance and observance. These roles carried concomitant expectations of their behaviour and lifestyle as Princes of the
Church: entertaining high-status guests, providing religious and political guidance and service to monarchs, maintaining and providing for extensive retinues, contributing to the physical fabric of their churches and estates in order to add to the prestige and posterity of the episcopal see. In the case of the Bishops of Durham, to these obligations may be added the necessity to provide a military bulwark against the Scots in order to maintain the integrity of the realm of the Kings of England.
The itineraries of medieval bishops are the routes they travelled from place to place in order to carry out these varied, inter-related duties and expectations, so that reconstructing them is of considerable importance for archaeologist and historian alike.9 This paper seeks to take this research a step further, exploring the interpretative potential of the physical layout of episcopal buildings through spatial access analysis and what it may reveal about social organisation and the social values accorded to people and places; and examining archaeological evidence for otherwise undocumented activities. It is hoped that this will contribute to a more holistic analysis of historical landscape and social context.
Documentary Evidence for Bishops’ Itineraries
The study of the Bishops of Durham benefits from the high survival rate of contemporary medieval documents and its resulting scholarly legacy. Many of the relevant historic sources
9 See above, pp. 00-00 (Barrow, Hoskin, and Hare). relating to the Bishops of Durham, including some of their surviving registers, have been published,10 and Caroline Smith has made a preliminary exploration of long-term patterns of change and development of the medieval residences of the Bishops of Durham through a synthesis of historic sources and archaeological information.11 Since documents, like acta or charters, often included place-dates, that is information on the date and place of issue, they can be invaluable for reconstructing the itineraries of bishops.12 In this paper, eight published bishops’ registers have been analysed, covering different episcopacies from different points throughout the later medieval period: those of Richard Poore (1209-13), Nicholas Farnham
(1241-49), Walter Kirkham (1249-60), Robert Stichill (1260-74), Robert of Holy Island
(1274-83), Antony Bek (1284-1310), Thomas Langley (1406-37), and Richard Fox (1494-
1501) (Figure 20-2 and Appendix). The place-dates of the acta have been analysed to reveal which sites were actively used for episcopal affairs. Such a study is limited by variations in the richness of the sources and the survival of the registers, so that, for the most part, there are only partially surviving registers from the earliest (twelfth- and thirteenth-century) bishops.13 Despite this, what remains are still exceptional survivals when compared to the
10 Earlier acta have been published as part of the English Episcopal Acta Series, the most
abundant of which are recorded in EEA 29. See also: Records Bek; Register Fox;
Register Langley.
11 Smith, C. (2016).
12 See Hoskin, above pp. 00-00 (Hoskin). But note Hoskin’s demonstration that the bishop
was not invariably present for the issuing of acta (pp. 00-00).
13 Discussed in Smith, D. M. (1981), pp. 264-266. overall survival rate of similar documents from other bishoprics,14 and the surviving acta of bishops Poore, Farnham, Kirkham, Stichill, and Robert of Holy Island provide particularly informative glimpses into which residences they were choosing to occupy and the relative frequency of these visits.15 Without complete records it is impossible to estimate, with the same degree of confidence as for the cases of the later bishops, the frequency with which earlier bishops used their residences. Despite this, the number of sites mentioned in relatively few sources arguably suggests that the bishops had no single preferred site and opted to visit many different residences.
Analysis of Antony Bek’s admittedly incomplete register, suggests a slight change in the occupational habits of this bishop compared to earlier bishops. While the same range of residences appear to have been visited by him, the number of visits is more unequally weighted. This suggests that during Bek’s episcopacy, he was travelling less while spending more time at Auckland Castle and residences in London than his predecessors.
By the fifteenth century, this change in occupational habit is more pronounced. For example, the extensive register of Thomas Langley reveals that he spent the majority of time at Auckland Castle and in London with an overwhelming 31% and 18% of acta issued from these places respectively.
Furthermore, some residences, such as Bishop Middleham Castle and Wolsingham, previously visited by earlier bishops, feature very irregularly or not at all. In instances where place-dates are available for almost every day of a period, it is possible to gauge the relative duration of visits. Auckland Castle and the bishop’s manor in London appear to have
14 Smith, D. M. (1981), pp. 264-266.
15 EEA 29. supported the bishop on long visits, while other residences such as Howden Manor
(Yorkshire East Riding), Wheel Hall (Riccall, Yorkshire North Riding), and Darlington
Manor appear to have been inhabited on shorter visits, suggesting that they were used for different purposes. Taken together, this information reveals a change in occupational patterns throughout the later medieval period, signalled by a shift in the fourteenth century. Therefore, some sites were occupied intensively while others were hardly used. These changes in occupational practice of the Bishops of Durham are likely attributable to a wider decline in the ‘Great Household’ from the fourteenth century.16 In earlier centuries, itineration around the diocese by nobles was a necessary factor in governance to ensure the security and maintenance of their widely dispersed lands and possessions.17 By the fourteenth century, however, effective systems of communication between landowners and their estates had been established, while élite households were decreasing in size as the trend for including hereditary retainers within households became less popular.18
16 Woolgar (1999), p. 14.
17 Wickson (2015), p. xxvi.
18 Johnson (1996), p. 135.
Figure 20-2: Histogram showing frequency over time of visits by Bishops of Durham to their residences, according to the acta (© C. Smith).
Palaces and Manor Houses – An Analysis in Access
Accumulated research over the last forty years has highlighted how the change in the medieval household altered the function of palaces and manor houses, ultimately resulting in their change in form.19 Function denotes the utility of a space, while form is the manifestation of this in architecture. If we accept that function advises form, then form is inherently meaningful and the study of this can be productive in helping us understand aspects of function, even in cases where the function was something as intangible as contemporary social convention.20
In their development of access analysis, Hillier and Hanson adhere to this same relationship between form and function.21 They argue that through the analysis of the organisation and relative permeability of defined spaces, it is possible to understand the intertwined concepts of function, form, and social meaning. Put simply, access analysis is the study of the flow of human traffic through built environments, in order to understand the
19 For medieval houses in general see Johnson (1993), (1996), (1997); Grenville (1997);
papers in Kowaleski and Goldberg (2008), and the excellent review by Giles (2014),
as well as the papers in Kristiansen and Giles (2014); for theorised approaches to
historical buildings in general see Hicks and Horning (2006) and King (2006). For
greater medieval houses see Emery (1996-2006); Thompson (1995); for bishops’
houses see Thompson (1998). For changes in élite household administration and
culture specifically, see Emery (1996-2006); Johnson (2002); Boniface (2006);
Woolgar (1999).
20 See also Kerscher, above, pp. 00-00.
21 Hillier and Hanson (1984). motivating factors behind the order of this flow. It is based on the notion that spaces with heavily restricted access imply social restriction. Buildings where the rooms were designed to be accessed only through limited routes are termed ‘dendritic’ or ‘tree-like’.22 This situation implies high levels of order. Buildings with less rigidly defined access routes, where rooms can be accessed from multiple points, allowing far greater circulation, are analyzed in degrees of what Hillier and Hanson call ‘ringiness’,23 which implies social flexibility. The exclusivity of space is defined by its ‘depth’ in the building, and spaces with limited access reflect increased social hierarchy.
Numerous archaeological studies have employed this approach to identify subtle social paradigms in a variety of contexts and in order to answer questions related to the contemporary perceptions of gender, status, and social hierarchy.24 In the case of the residences of the Bishops of Durham, many of these buildings remain standing, with well- understood phased building chronologies. Where buildings no longer remain standing, archaeological investigation can provide additional data regarding phasing and room use.
Spatial analysis applied to these sites allows us to ask questions about how the form of these
22 Miller (2000), p. 13.
23 Hillier and Hanson (1984), p. 102.
24 Fairclough (1992); Gilchrist (1999); Richardson (2003); Kühtreiber (2014); the perspective
from more historical documentary sources is covered in Hanawalt and Kobialka
(2000); for critique of Space Syntax as applied to medieval buildings see Grenville
(1997), pp. 17-20; Graves (2000), pp. 11-12; Schmid (2014); see also the challenging
approach to relationships between the construction and occupation of architecture in
Ingold (2013). residences evolved, how access routes within them might have changed over time, and the implications this has for our understanding of social relations within these buildings (Figure
20-3).
The majority of the residences of the Bishops of Durham were established in the twelfth and early-thirteenth centuries.25 For example, at Seaton Holme, archaeological investigation determined that the earliest phase likely dates from the thirteenth century26 and comprised a central hall with service rooms at one end and a parlour at the other, and external outbuildings.27 In the fifteenth century, a substantial ‘east range’ was added. At Norham
Castle, Dixon and Marshall have proposed that the donjon housed a large hall that was latterly sub-divided while new storeys were added in the fifteenth century.28 The effect of this transformation was to segregate the communal space while adding additional areas for private accommodation. At Howden Manor, two ranges and a hall built by Bishop Skirlaw (1388-
1406) continue the theme of large fifteenth-century building programmes. Archaeological investigation in 1983 identified the remains of an earlier hall within the footprint of Skirlaw’s
25 Smith, C. (2016).
26 Traditionally it has been stated that Seaton Holme was built for Bishop Farnham’s
retirement in 1248. See Smith, C. (2016) for a discussion on why this is unreliable.
27 Archaeological Services University of Durham (2000).
28 Dixon and Marshall (1993). hall.29 Lastly, at Crayke Castle, a Great Chamber and kitchen were added to the existing structure in the fifteenth century.30
The combined impression gleaned from these individual sites, is that there was a concerted effort by the fourteenth- and fifteenth-century bishops significantly to alter their buildings, often adding large second ranges with a host of private rooms. Nowhere is this displayed more clearly than in the case of Auckland Castle. Here, the oldest phase is thought to have been the twelfth-century St Peter’s Chapel, now believed to have been the earliest hall.31 As a result of archaeological and standing buildings work, it is hypothesised that service rooms would have extended from the hall, though proof of this has not yet been found.32 At right-angles to St Peter’s Chapel is the second range built by Bek in 1307-08 to accommodate his chamber above an undercroft and a two-storeyed chapel,33 though this was seemingly demolished during the Commonwealth.34
29 Whitwell (1984).
30 For discussions of this see: Emery (1996-2006), I, Smith, C. (2016), or Raine (1852).
31 Cunningham (1990).
32 Archaeological Services Durham University (2014a) and Drury, P. (2012) have posited
that there may have been rooms adjoining the hall. Extensive, long-term
archaeological excavation, standing buildings analysis and geophysical survey are
being undertaken at Auckland Castle by Archaeological Services Durham University
from 2015 onwards.
33 Raine (1852), p. 21. Bek’s building works were described by Robert of Graystanes as ‘cum
capella et camera sumptuosissime construxit’ ( Scriptores Tres, p.90), therefore
implying the role of these rooms. Recent archaeological work by Drury, P. (2012) and
Archaeological Services Durham University (2014a) have similarly interpreted the
‘Throne Room’ to have been the site of Bek’s chamber.
34 Raine (1852), p. 66 discusses the damage done during the Commonwealth, but he was
under the impression that the present chapel was the original. See above, pp. 00-00
(Pears, Green, Thurlby).
Figure 20-3: Diagram of access analysis in relation some of the residences of the Bishops of Durham, using evidence from known structures at residences with sufficient evidence from standing buildings, excavated
and archival data (© C. Smith).
In this layout shown in Figure 20-3, the building appears to be organised to create increasing levels of privacy, in a dendritic form, implying a rigid flow of people. At one end, the Great Hall and service rooms would have been used by people ranging in social status.
Adjacent to that was access to the bishop’s chamber, which was ‘semi-permeable’ and not accessible by all.35 The bishop’s private accommodation lay beyond this, whilst the bishop’s chapel was the ‘deepest’ in the complex, implying that it was invested with the greatest private and possibly sacred value. Though we cannot be sure that Bek’s chapel did not have multiple points of access, it is possible to look at the site of Durham Place for a point of comparison. Durham Place, the bishop’s residence in London and a very frequently visited residence of the fourteenth- and fifteenth-century bishops, was repurposed and latterly demolished in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. A crudely sketched plan dating from 1626 was drawn to settle a dispute with the French Ambassador. This plan provides the only indication of the layout of this site, which clearly resembles Auckland
Castle. The residence is organised in a Z-shape across two ranges, one of which features the hall and probable service rooms, the other includes a large, rectangular room only slightly smaller than the hall, with the chapel, named on the plan, adjoining this. Access routes drawn on the maps seem to indicate doorways in the hall and probable parlour. Though this plan is not scaled and therefore not an accurate depiction of the buildings, it does provide enough detail to highlight the similarities with Auckland Castle. Taken together, the layout of these two residences suggest strongly similar organisation of privacy and perceived social value.
35 See above, pp. 00-00 (Burger). Based on this model, the chapel stands out as the most exclusive space, placed in the most isolated region of the building.36
This consistent pattern of structural change coincides with changes in the bishops’ patterns of movement identified through analysis of their itineraries. The construction of additional accommodation areas and extension of the bishop’s personal spaces is arguably a response to the bishops concentrating their time in fewer residences. In secular contexts,
Johnson has suggested that, as the great household declined, magnates travelled less and chose to concentrate their time in fewer, preferred locations. These residences were enhanced in size and decoration as a means of expressing wealth, power and identity.37 The changes observed at the residences of the Bishops of Durham may correspond to this phenomenon.
The enlargement of the bishop’s private quarters at specific sites may reflect this desire to assert an increase in, and narrowing focus of, authority through their architecture. Through the strict adherence to rigid, restrictive hierarchical access the social identities and distinctions amongst the retinue and household that used the buildings were fossilised.
Visually and physically, the social structure within these buildings was enforced and the bishop was consequently aggrandised.
This research can also be tied wider patterns of spatial use in Continental bishops’ residences. Gottfried Kerscher explores spatial arrangements in European bishops’ palaces, arguing that while precise room arrangements can differ, the patterns of access through these spaces remains constant, with rooms ascending in degrees of privacy away from the hall.38 As
36 See above, pp. 00-00 (Schofield Gazetteer, no. 7).
37 Johnson (1996), pp. 131-140.
38 See above, pp.00-00 (Kerscher). it has been demonstrated that this is largely valid for the residences of the Bishops of
Durham, there is a strong case that wider European influences affected the form and functioning of the palaces and houses of the Bishops of Durham. The wider implications of this are currently not well understood, and further research may yield interesting results.
Archaeological Contributions – Three Case Studies
The study in access above reveals that there is some uniformity in the layout and access routes of these buildings according to the social conditions of the time and place. However, the differences between the residences of the Bishops of Durham often relate to their function through the exploitation of the landscape and similarly provide valuable insights into their form. This paper now turns to explore the information provided by recent archaeological intervention at the sites of three less well-preserved residences of the Bishops of Durham –
Darlington Manor, Westgate Castle, and Bishop Middleham Castle – in order to demonstrate that there is often much new data of importance to be obtained about the nature of the form and function of such sites in the medieval period.
Case Study 1: Darlington Manor
Darlington Manor was an important residence of the Bishops of Durham, situated on the main route south to London. In the earliest itineraries, it was a much-frequented residence, whilst in later centuries it was only used for short periods of time in the course of perambulations of the diocese (Figure 20-2). However, it retained strategic value as a stopping place on journeys to the capital and the south.
The value of this site is reflected in the longevity of the residence, which was allegedly founded c.1164,39 and continued in use as an episcopal residence until 1703.40 There
39 Clack and Pearson (1978), p. 8, Hutchinson (1785), p. 181. was a brief remission during the Interregnum years, when it changed from episcopal ownership into a Quaker Workhouse. It was sold in this capacity to the civic authority of
Darlington and was latterly sold into private ownership when it was eventually demolished in
1870.41
Many antiquarian visual and cartographic representations of the site have survived of both the east and west aspects of the building, in addition to ground-plans of it in its probable medieval configuration (Figure 20-4).42 A particularly valuable source is the First Edition
Ordnance Survey Map from 1856, which clearly shows that the original medieval hall remained whilst the medieval accommodation range had been demolished and replaced with a later range to suit the requirements of the workhouse (Figure 20-6). The early images, examined together, confirm that the residence had an L-shaped ground plan, with one range housing the hall and chapel and the other probably an accommodation and services range.
The northern elevation appears to have been ornately decorated with elaborate stonework around the door and windows, while on the southern face the windows were over the River
Skerne and parkland owned by the bishops beyond (Figure 20-5).
40 Longstaffe (1854), p. 153.
41 Longstaffe (1854), p. 153.
42 Watercolour dated from 1764 by Norman Crosse entitled ‘Manor House, Darlington’
(Darlington Local Studies Library accession number: PH5067 L566A); Anonymous
hand-drawn sketch dating from 1813 entitled ‘Old Bishop’s Palace’ (Darlington Local
Studies Library accession number: PH2933 L56B); Drawn plan dated from 1866 by
H.D. Pritchett, a Darlington architect, and entitled ‘Plan – Bishop Pudsey’s Manor
House, Darlington’ (Darlington Borough Council).
Figure 20-4: Darlington Manor, plan from a drawing made in 1866, redrawn in
1915.
Figure 20-5: Darlington Manor House, mid- to late-eighteenth-century view showing north elevation with the large windows framing views over the river and parkland beyond. Wood cut by Thomas Bewick, reproduced in Longstaffe (1854).
Figure 20-6: Map showing locations of trial trenches (small rectangles), and full area excavation (shaded areas) overlying the conjectured site plan of Darlington Manor, with the medieval Old Hall (prior to demolition) and post-medieval workhouse (1808), as shown on the 1st Edition
Ordnance Survey Map of 1856 (Archaeological Services Durham
University).
It is these sources, together with a comprehensive desk-based assessment by Niall
Hammond, that formed the basis for the archaeological investigations in 2011 and 2013.43
However, only one of the trenches excavated in the most at-risk areas of the site uncovered in situ medieval fabric, and this was located in the north-east corner of the original hall. The other trenches uncovered the foundations of parts of the post-medieval workhouse.
Nevertheless, it was discovered through excavation that this range was built with reused medieval masonry and some 250 architectural fragments, whilst records of stones recovered from the north range demolished in 1870, and two entire arches removed at the time, provide an illuminating glimpse into portions of the lost medieval building.44 Three main building phases could be identified through the discovery of twelfth-century, fourteenth-century, and fifteenth-century stonework and some late medieval architectural fragments displaying
Scottish vernacular style.45 Among this stonework were examples of highly ornate lintels, column bases, and window arches befitting a high-status bishop’s manor house. The majority of fragments relate to the twelfth century, including examples of Romanesque window forms.
Column or nook-shaft capitals with nail-head decoration between small roll mouldings with a keeled roll beneath, and ‘water-holding’ column bases, are comparable to existing forms in the late twelfth-century chancel of the Church of St Cuthbert, Darlington.46 There are jamb-
43 Hammond (2013). For the excavations, see Archaeological Services University of Durham
(1997); Archaeological Services Durham University (2013a), (2013b), (2013c),
(2013d), (2014b), (2014c), (2014d), (2015a), (2015b)
44 Ryder (2015)
45 Ryder (2014), (2015).
46 Ryder (2015), p. 46. stones and voussoirs from various sizes of arched opening, which can be paralleled with the internal jambs of the lancet windows of the transepts of St Cuthbert’s (c.1200).47 Antiquarian images show a number of round-headed windows in the old Manor House, and a stepped triplet in the Chapel of St James may represent either round-headed or Transitional lancets
(Figure 20-5), again inviting comparison with the building of St Cuthbert’s Church.48 Some stones, retained decorative polychrome paintwork, including simulated masonry patterns. In addition, there is evidence for multiple-cusped window heads and square-headed windows of the later medieval period (possibly later fourteenth-fifteenth-century, or the Bishop Cosin medieval revival of the seventeenth century), as well as portions of whitewashed fireplaces.
The antiquarian images clearly show elevations with insertions and blockings of many periods, but the combined evidence suggests major building of the late twelfth century, with later medieval alterations. These discoveries reveal evidence of the quality and extent of architectural investment in Darlington Manor into the later medieval period, in contrast to the evidence from the itineraries of the Bishops of Durham, which imply that the residence was irregularly used by the later bishops. This would suggest that there was a continued commitment by the bishops to the maintenance and upgrading of this residence, perhaps to symbolise their continued authority in Darlington, even when they were not themselves present often.
The faunal remains recovered from the site further illustrate the role and function of this residence. The medieval contexts contained a wide range of faunal remains, notably large quantities of horse remains and some bones from both a heron and a crane, revealing information both as to the animals used in hunting, and an indication of the quarry species
47 Ryder (2015), pp. 44-45
48 Ryder (2015), p. 46. served at table.49 A pond, in particular, contained a very large faunal assemblage, and produced radiocarbon dates for two notable sequences of deposition of 1323-1440 and 1445-
1631 respectively.50 It may be inferred from this assemblage of species that the immediately surrounding landscape and parkland was exploited in two main ways. First, the high proportion of horse bones may suggest that the animals raised and kept within the parks included a high proportion of horses in relation to other animal species, such as cows and sheep. In addition, the remains of crane and heron bones are an unusual discovery in medieval contexts,51 and are highly suggestive of the bishops’ hunting practices in this region, as they provide indirect evidence of falconry. Part of a skeleton of a female peregrine falcon, found in a late medieval context in the Market Place excavation, is evidence for a mews in the locality and for the presence of the type of falcon suitable for taking such quarry.52
Hunting was an élite pursuit,53 while hunting waterfowl in particular was a popular and prestigious pastime requiring suitable landscapes and access to trained birds of prey.54 This was an activity requiring a particular natural location, and the evidence of these remains indicates that Darlington was such a location.
49 Gidney (2015).
50 Gidney (2015).
51 Albarella and Thomas (2002). The crane is a new archaeological record for this species in
County Durham and extends the previously known medieval distribution
52 Reference needed.
53 Oggins (2004). On episcopal hunting, see above, pp. 00-00 (Langton).
54 Oggins (2004). There was evidence for a pond, probably originally ornamental, that had silted up.
Deposits containing horse and dog bones had been used to fill and finally level off the pond after it had gone out of use, over the period 1445-1631.55 This assemblage is of interest in showing aspects of the maintenance and kennel feed of the bishops’ hounds, including the knackering of horses specifically to feed hounds.56 The small number of gnaw marks seen on the horse bones probably reflects the fact that the bones were still covered in flesh, whereas the beef marrow bones with extensive gnawing were probably fed to the hounds as de-fleshed bones. The dog bones from the pond indicate animals of a range of sizes and build. The dogs requisitioned for the Great Chase in the Boldon Book were all greyhounds.57 However, different game required different dogs, and this illustrates the variety of hounds and hunting dogs maintained by a great magnate. The variety of dogs recovered from the pond therefore suggests that the kennels of this manor maintained dogs for sport other than the roe deer hunt.
Taken together, the faunal evidence suggests the importance of hunting at Darlington
Manor, and underlines the need to take into account the potential influence of this activity on the form and function of this building. It may be that the residence should be seen as, to an extent at least, a hunting lodge of the bishops that fulfilled a niche requirement amongst the wider corpus of residences.
55 Archaeological Services Durham University (2015b), p. 9.
56 Gidney (2015), p. 37; see comparative evidence from Witney Palace (Oxon.), belonging to
the Bishops of Winchester, Wilson and Edwards (1993)
57 Boldon Book, pp. 11, 13, 17, 21, 27, 29, 45, 49, 53, 55, 57, Case Study 2: Westgate Castle
Westgate Castle, near Stanhope in Weardale (County Durham), was excavated by
Archaeological Services Durham University and a team of volunteers.58 It, too, is characterised by the way in which the wider landscape associated with the house was exploited by the Bishops of Durham. Westgate Castle sat at the western gateway of the bishops’ Stanhope Park. This was within their Forest of Weardale, where they held every year the Great Chase, a hunt first mentioned in Boldon Book, a survey of the bishopric’s estates drawn up in 1183.59 Hunting is widely believed to have been a formal way of reinforcing social relationships and maintaining the social order.60 The Great Chase in the
Forest of Weardale may have had particular significance as a method of displaying and maintaining military capability in a region of historic conflict between England and
Scotland.61 According to Boldon Book, purpose-built wooden structures were erected for each year’s hunt to accommodate the bishop, his guests, and retinue.62 Due to the temporary nature of these buildings, very little about their physical form is likely to be known archaeologically, but some details of their size and function are recorded in the Boldon
58 Archaeological Services Durham University (2012).
59 Drury, J. L. (1978); Boldon Book, p. 37. See above, pp. 00-00 (Jones).
60 Almond (2003).
61 Archaeological Services Durham University (2012), pp. 00-00; and Randerson and Gidney
(2011).
62 Drury, J. L. (1978); Archaeological Services Durham University (2012), p. 5. Book.63 Westgate Castle, however, was built c.1300 by Bishop Bek, after the reorganisation of the Forest of Weardale and the emparkment of Stanhope Park.64 So, Westgate Castle was the first permanent building in succession to the temporary wooden buildings referred to in
Boldon Book, and the precedents set by these ephemeral structures would seem to have influenced the unusual form and layout of the castle.
The form of Westgate Castle is, perhaps, best summarised by John Leland as a ‘praty square Pile’.65 The excavations of this site in 2011 uncovered substantial masonry remains consistent with this description. Recovered features included in situ walls and part of an impressive staircase built into the walls (Figure 20-7) and a section of a garderobe chute, together with clear evidence of later robbing.66 In addition, a section of what was probably the course of the deer park pale was recovered.67 Peter Ryder has produced a reconstruction of this residence based on the excavated groundplan, recovered masonry, and architectural fragments, combined with the results of geophysical survey of the site.68 This depicts
Westgate Castle as a low, solidly built residence that outwardly resembled a gatehouse with little in common with other residences that often featured multiple ranges. Despite this, historic evidence attests the existence of the expected collection of rooms within the
63 Drury, J. L. (1978); Boldon Book, p. 37.
64 Drury, J. L. (1978).
65 Leland Itinerary (Hearne), p. 73.
66 Archaeological Services Durham University (2012), pp. 00-00.
67 Archaeological Services Durham University (2012), p. 18.
68 Archaeological Services Durham University (2012), pp. 00-00. structure, including a hall, buttery, and chambers.69 Westgate Castle can therefore be compared with other bishops’ residences for the requirements that it met, if not the actual layout. Therefore, while the outward appearance of a building and its context can change, there are consistencies in the use of internal space that strongly suggest that this building functioned socially like others.
Figure 20-7: Westgate Castle, remains of spiral staircase excavated in
2011 (Archaeological Services Durham University).
69 Drury, J. L. (1978). Case Study 3: Bishop Middleham Castle
The site of Bishop Middleham Castle is particularly tantalising as it has extensive earthworks, partial surviving masonry, and an unusual and dramatic topography, combined with a suggestive written record. The castle sat atop a natural rocky outcrop which projects into a predominantly waterlogged landscape. Today, this area is used as a wetland to support waterfowl and other water-loving natural species, while the remains of medieval fishponds, together with historical references to swans having been kept at the site, serve to underline the historically watery character of the site.70 The evidence is sufficient to suggest that, bounded by water on all but one narrow approach, Bishop Middleham Castle may have resembled a peninsula, evocative of the setting of Durham Castle, whilst elements of the watery landscape and steep escarpments parallel other episcopal residence sites. For example,
Wheel Hall in Riccall (Yorkshire North Riding), was set in an area notorious for flooding but seems to have been deliberately located, described as the ‘house in the river-deep’ in the fourteenth century.71
70 Durham University Special Collections, Church Commission Deposit of Durham Bishopric
Estate Records: Financial and Audit Records to 1649, CCB B/73/9 (188815).
71 Smith, A. H. (1937), p. 265. In addition, repairs were carried out in the sixteenth century to
the hall, great chamber, chapel, stables, and other buildings, and to ‘the drawdike
about the manor’ Durham University Special Collections, Church Commission
Deposit of Durham Bishopric Estate Records (188447, 220920, 221641–3); Durham,
Durham Cathedral Library, MS Sharpe 167, Bishop Cosin’s survey; Baggs, Kent and
Purdy (1976).
Figure 20-8: Bishop Middleham Castle, earthwork survey plan, 1999
(Mark Francis and Archaeological Services Durham University, for
Durham County Council).
As at Darlington Manor and Westgate Castle, the bishops exploited the natural environment around the castle to a significant extent. At the base of the outcrop on which
Bishop Middleham Castle sits, two rectilinear fishponds can be identified from the earthwork evidence, while portions of the original park pale set within a later stone wall mark out parts of the original park boundary which enclosed areas of known carr land, that is wetland.72 It is clear from textual sources that Bishop Middleham Castle was used as a location for rearing
72 Hardie (2010), p. 7. and keeping swans, with two birds gifted there in 131373 and fourteenth-century account rolls recording the practice of swan husbandry and the costs and profits thereof.74 An established swannery would provide a prestigious resource for high-status dining, and the presumed by- product of down and feathers with which to create luxury domestic furnishing. Swan bones occurred in the medieval food waste deposits beneath the Prior’s Kitchen at Durham
Cathedral, excavated in 2014, and the birds may well have been supplied from Bishop
Middleham.75 Oyster shell and medieval pottery were discovered to have eroded out of one side of the hilltop following a storm.76 Understood together, these pieces of evidence suggest that this site was the setting for élite activity, hinted at through the breeding of swans and the consumption of oysters. The evidence implies that through the exploitation and management of the landscape associated with Bishop Middleham Castle, this site occupied a specific niche among the residences of the Bishops of Durham.
Little is known of the buildings that comprised the residence. Of the exposed masonry on the top of the ridge, only one partially surviving in situ wall remains, while other exposed masonry is almost certainly a result of post-medieval farming activity. Geophysical survey of
73 Registrum Palatinum Dunelmense, p. 480.
74 Durham University Special Collections, Church Commission Deposit of Durham Bishopric
Estate Records: Financial and Audit Records to 1649, CCB B/73/9 (188815).
75 Dr Louisa Gidney, pers comm
76 K. S. G. Pritchard, pers. comm. 1998. the site revealed areas of both scattered masonry and ordered stonework resembling walls, rooms, or buildings (Figure 20-9)77
77 Resistivity survey on earthworks at Middleham Castle, 1999 (Mark Francis and
Archaeological Services Durham University, commissioned by Niall Hammond for
Durham County Council.
Figure 20-9: Bishop Middleham Castle, resistivity survey on earthworks,
1999 (Mark Francis and Archaeological Services Durham University, for
Durham County Council; annotated by C. Smith).
Of particular interest are two areas of high resistivity at features T and U. Feature T aligns with a circular earthwork depression which suggests that this could be a pit or well, while feature U resembles a magnetic response for burnt matter, possibly representing a hearth or oven. Other negative magnetic responses were detected as a long linear feature (H) at the northern extent of the site, with some larger enclosures extending from these (L). These features may represent infilled ditches or the remains of a palisade boundary around the site, although without further archaeological exploration it is impossible to date these or to relate them to the known period of medieval occupation of the site. However, when considered together, the features provide some indication of the spatial arrangement within the residence complex, with the caveat that we cannot identify specific spaces with confidence. More data would be required in order to understand the buildings with greater specificity, and to be able, as a consequence, to consider the relationship of Bishop Middleham Castle to the form, layout, and development of other residences of the Bishops of Durham.
This initial scoping exercise at Bishop Middleham Castle indicates the high potential for surviving below-ground deposits, while the evidence gleaned through landscape analysis and textual sources reveals the unique role of this residence.
Conclusion
This paper has demonstrated that integrating archaeological and historical sources, together with undertaking spatial architectural and landscape analysis, can provide a more thorough and nuanced understanding of the form and patterns of use of episcopal residences. The approach taken to the holdings of the medieval Bishops of Durham establishes a novel, and valuable methodology for understanding episcopal patterns of residence and critical historical changes in social structure and use that could be applied elsewhere in Europe; and, indeed, could be further applied to other forms of multiple-residence households of magnates and the
élite in other periods and places.78 The combination of evidence from different disciplines, and various finds, allow for a nuanced appreciation of occupation, use, and changes through time which adds not only to an understanding of places, but also contributes to the debate on changing social structure and organisation of great households, as well as potentially giving insight into the preferences and preoccupations of individual historical agents. The combined evidence suggests that, initially, the Bishops of Durham made use of a wide range of their landholdings, throughout and beyond their own diocese. In the later Middle Ages, preferences for particular manors emerge, and these preferences can be interpreted as the result of both wider changes in the configuration and management of European magnate households, and of the specific requirements of the Bishops of Durham in their evolving historical context.
78 E.g. itineraries exist for Ottoman magnates, with considerable architectural and
archaeological remains; see Kushner (1986).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Albarella, U. and Thomas, R., 2002 '“They Dined on Crane”: Bird Consumption, Wild
Fowling and Status in Medieval England', Acta zoologica cracoviensia 45, 23-38.
Almond, R. D., 2003 Medieval Hunting (Stroud).
Archaeological Services Durham University, 2012 Westgate Castle, Weardale,
County Durham: Archaeological Investigations, Unpublished Report 2804, on Behalf of
Altogether Archaeology with North Pennines AONB Partnership and Pam and Ian Forbes).
Archaeological Services Durham University, 2013a Darlington Town Hall,
Darlington: Archaeological Evaluation, Unpublished Report, 3220, on Behalf of Willmott
Dixon for Darlington Borough Council, Unpublished Report).
Archaeological Services Durham University, 2013b Feethams Development,
Darlington: Archaeological Evaluation, Unpublished Report, 3277, on Behalf of Terrace Hill
(Feethams) Ltd).
Archaeological Services Durham University, 2013c Former Darlington Football
Ground, Feethams, Darlington: Archaeological Assessment and Building Recording,
Unpublished Report, 3086, on Behalf of Dunelm Homes Ltd). Archaeological Services Durham University, 2013d Former Darlington Football
Ground, Feethams, Darlington: Archaeological Evaluation, Unpublished Report, 3099, on
Behalf of Dunelm Homes Ltd).
Archaeological Services Durham University, 2014a Auckland Castle, Bishop
Auckland, County Durham: Archaeological Evaluation, Unpublished Report 3417, on Behalf of Auckland Castle Trust).
Archaeological Services Durham University, 2014b Darlington Multi-Storey Car
Park, Beaumont Street, Darlington, Unpublished Report, 3348, on Behalf of Willmott Dixon
Construction Ltd for Darlington Borough Council).
Archaeological Services Durham University, 2014c Darlington Town Hall: Post-
Excavation Assessment, Unpublished Report, 3311).
Archaeological Services Durham University, 2014d Proposed Riverside Park,
Feethams, Darlington: Archaeological Evaluation, Unpublished Report, 3334, Willmott
Dixon Construction Ltd for Darlington Borough Council).
Archaeological Services Durham University, 2015a Beaumont Street Multi Storey Car
Park, Darlington: Archaeological Post-Excavation Assessment, Unpublished Report, 3695).
Archaeological Services Durham University, 2015b Darlington Town Hall,
Darlington: Post-Excavation Full Analysis, Unpublished Report, 3604, on Behalf of
Willmott Dixon Construction Ltd for Darlington Borough Council). Archaeological Services University of Durham, 1997 Archaeological Recording in
Darlington Market Place, Unpublished Report, 421, on Behalf of Darlington Borough
Council).
Archaeological Services University of Durham, 2000 Seaton Holme, Easington, Co.
Durham: Architectural Recording and Archaeological Excavation, Unpublished Report, 638, on Behalf of Groundwork East Durham).
Arnold, A. and Howard, R., 2013 Auckland Castle, Bishop Auckland, County
Durham: Tree-Ring Analysis of Timbers, Scientific Dating Report, English Heritage Research
Report Series, 48-2013 (Portsmouth).
Baggs, A. P., Kent, X. and Purdy, J. D., 1976 'Riccall', in Allison, K. J. (ed), A History of the County of York East Riding: Volume 3, Ouse and Derwent Wapentake, and Part of
Harthill Wapentake, Victoria History of the Counties of England (London), pp. 82-89.
Boniface, J. P., 2006 'The Durham Gentry: Social Stability and Change in the Palatinate of Durham, c. 1286-1346 ' (unpubl. PhD thesis, Durham University, Department of History).
Brickstock, R. J., 2007 Durham Castle: Fortress, Palace, College (Huddersfield).
Carlstein, T., 1980 Time Resources, Society and Ecology: On the Capacity for Human
Interaction in Space and Time, University of Lund, Department of Geography (Lund).
Carlstein, T. and Thrift, N. J., 1977 Towards a Time-Space Structured Approach to
Society and Environment, Lunds Universitet Geografiska Institutionen (Lund). Clack, P. A. G. and Pearson, N. F., 1978 Darlington: A Topographical Study,
Northern Archaeological Survey, Durham University, Department of Archaeology (Durham).
Colgrave, B., 1953a Durham Castle: An Illustrated Survey of the Ancient Castle of the
Bishops of Durham, Now Occupied by University College, Durham (Derby).
Colgrave, B., 1953b 'The Restoration of the Norman Chapel in Durham Castle',
Transactions of the Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and
Northumberland 10: 4, 381-382.
Conneller, C., 2010 'Taskscapes and the Transition', in Finlayson, B. and Warrend, G.
(ed), Landscapes in Transition (Oxford), pp. 184-191.
Cornforth, J., 1972 'Auckland Castle, Co. Durham', Country Life 151: 27 January, 3
February, 10 February, 198-202, 260-270, 334-337.
Cunningham, J. A., 1980 'Hugh of le Puiset and the Church of St Cuthbert, Darlington', in Draper, P. and Coldstream, N. (ed), Medieval Art and Architecture at Durham Cathedral,
British Archaeological Association Conference Transactions, 3 (Leeds), pp. 163-169.
Cunningham, J. A., 1990 'Auckland Castle: Some Recent Discoveries', in Fernie, E. and
Crossley, P. (ed), Medieval Architecture and its Intellectual Context : Studies in Honour of
Peter Kidson (London), pp. 81-90. De Cunzo, L. A. and Ernstein, J. H., 2006 'Landscapes, Ideology and Experience in
Historical Archaeology', in Hicks, D. and Beaudry, M. C. (ed), The Cambridge Companion to
Historical Archaeology (Cambridge), pp. 255-272.
Dixon, P. and Marshall, P., 1993 'The Great Tower in the Twelfth Century: The Case of
Norham Castle', Archaeological Journal 150, 410-432.
Drury, J. L., 1978 'Westgate Castle in Weardale: The Last 500 Years', Transactions of the Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland New Series, 4,
31-33.
Drury, P., 2012 Auckland Castle: Historical, Architectural and Archaeological
Research and Investigation to Inform the Development Project, Unpublished Report).
Emery, A., 1996-2006 Greater Medieval Houses in England and Wales 1300-1500, 3 vols (Cambridge).
Fairclough, G., 1992 'Meaningful Constructions: Spatial and Functional Analysis of
Medieval Buildings', Antiquity 66, 348-366.
Gidney, L. J., 2015 'Animal Bone Analysis', in Archaeological Services Durham
University (ed), Darlington Town Hall, Darlington: Post-Excavation Full Analysis,
Unpublished Report 3604, on Behalf of Willmott Dixon Construction Ltd for Darlington
Borough Council, pp. 21-38.
Gilchrist, R., 1999 Gender and Archaeology: Contesting the Past (London). Giles, K., 2014 'Ways of Living in Medieval England', in Kristiansen, M. S. and Giles,
K. (ed), Dwellings, Identities and Homes: European Housing Culture from the Viking Age to the Renaissance (Aarhus), pp. 13-28.
Graves, C. P., 2000 The Form and Fabric of Belief: An Archaeology of the Lay
Experience of Religion in Medieval Norfolk and Devon, British Archaeological Reports
British Series, 311 (Oxford).
Grenville, J., 1997 Medieval Housing (London).
Hammond, N., 2013 Heritage Statement for a Proposed Multi-Storey Carpark at
Beaumont Street, Feethams, Darlington, Archaeo-Environment Ltd (Lartington).
Hanawalt, B. A. and Kobialka, M. (ed), 2000 Medieval Practices of Space (Minneapolis).
Hardie, C., 2010 Bishop Middleham, County Durham, Conservation Area:
Conservation Area Character Appraisal, Archaeo-Environment Ltd Report 0056/1-08,
Prepared for Durham County Council (Lartington).
Hicks, D. and Horning, A., 2006 'Historical Archaeology and Buildings', in Hicks, D. and Beaudry, M. C. (ed), The Cambridge Companion to Historical Archaeology
(Cambridge), pp. 273-292.
Hillier, B. and Hanson, J., 1984 The Social Logic of Space (Cambridge). Hislop, M. J. B., 2007 John Lewyn of Durham: A Medieval Mason in Practice, British
Archaeological Reports, British Series, 438 (Oxford).
Hutchinson, W., 1785 The History and Antiquities of the County Palatine of Durham,
Volume I (Newcastle-upon-Tyne).
Ingold, T., 1993 'The Temporality of the Landscape', World Archaeology 25: 2, 152-
174.
Ingold, T., 2000 The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill (London).
Ingold, T., 2005 Towards a Politics of Dwelling (New Delhi and London).
Ingold, T., 2013 Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture (London).
Johnson, M., 1993 Housing Culture: Traditional Architecture in an English
Landscape (London).
Johnson, M., 1996 The Archaeology of Capitalism (Oxford).
Johnson, M., 1997 'Rethinking Houses, Rethinking Transitions: Of Vernacular
Architecture, Ordinary People and Everyday Culture', in Gaimster, D. and Stamper, P. (ed),
The Age of Transition (Oxford), pp. 145-156. Johnson, M., 2002 Behind the Castle Gate: From the Middle Ages to the Renaissance
(London).
King, J. A., 2006 'Household Archaeology, Identities and Biographies', in Hicks, D. and
Beaudry, M. C. (ed), The Cambridge Companion to Historical Archaeology (Cambridge), pp.
293-313.
Kowaleski, M. and Goldberg, P. J. P. (ed), 2008 Medieval Domesticity: Home, Housing and Household in Medieval England (Cambridge).
Kristiansen, M. S. and Giles, K. (ed), 2014 Dwellings, Identities and Homes: European
Housing Culture from the Viking Age to the Renaissance (Aarhus).
Kühtreiber, T., 2014 'The Investigation of Domesticated Space in Archaeology –
Architecture and Human Beings', in Kristiansen, M. S. and Giles, K. (ed), Dwellings,
Identities and Homes: European Housing Culture from the Viking Age to the Renaissance
(Aarhus), pp. 39-51.
Kushner, D., 1986 Palestine in the Late Ottoman Period: Political, Social, and
Economic Transformation (Jerusalem and Leiden).
Leyland, M., 1994a 'The Origins and Development of Durham Castle', in Rollason, D.,
Harvey, M. and Prestwich, M. (ed), Anglo-Norman Durham 1093-1193 (Woodbridge), pp.
407-424. Leyland, M., 1994b 'The Origins and Development of Durham Castle to AD 1217: The
Archaeological and Architectural Record' (unpubl. PhD thesis, Durham University,
Department of Archaeology).
Logan, A. L. and Cruz, M. D., 2014 'Gendered Taskscapes: Food, Farming, and Craft
Production in Banda, Ghana in the Eighteenth to Twenty-First Centuries', African
Archaeological Review 31: 2, 203-231.
Longstaffe, W. H. D., 1854 The History and Antiquities of the Parish of Darlington
(Darlington).
Miller, M. C., 2000 The Bishop's Palace: Architecture and Authority in Medieval
Italy (Ithaca).
Navickas, K., 2011 'Luddism, Incendiarism and the Defence of Rural "Task-Scapes" in
1812', Northern History 48: 1, 59-73.
Oggins, R. S., 2004 The Kings and their Hawks: Falconry in Medieval England (New
Haven).
Pred, A., 1985 'The Social Becomes the Spatial, the Spatial Becomes the Social:
Enclosures, Social Change and the Becoming of Places in Skåne', in Gregory, D. and Urry, J.
(ed), Social Relations and Spatial Relations (London), pp. 337-365.
Raine, J., 1852 A Brief Historical Account of the Episcopal Castle, or Palace, of
Auckland, Compiled from Records in the Auditor's Office at Durham (Durham). Randerson, M. and Gidney, L. J., 2011 The ‘Great Chase’ of the Bishops of Durham:
Princely Power and the Hunt, available at: https://www.academia.edu/3046537/The_Great_Chase, Poster Presented at Power and the
Sacred Conference, Nottingham, November 2011).
Richardson, A., 2003 'Corridors of Power: a Case Study in Access Analysis from
Medieval England', Antiquity 77: 296, 373-384.
Ryder, P., 2014, in Archaeological Services Durham University (ed), Darlington Town Hall:
Post-Excavation Assessment, Unpublished Report 331.
Ryder, P., 2015 'Structural Stone Analysis', in Archaeological Services Durham
University (ed), Darlington Town Hall, Darlington: Post-Excavation Full Analysis,
Unpublished Report 3604, on Behalf of Willmott Dixon Construction Ltd for Darlington
Borough Council, pp. 43-49.
Schmid, C., 2014 'The Investigation of Domesticated Space in Archaeology - Beyond
Architecture', in Kristiansen, M. S. and Giles, K. (ed), Dwellings, Identities and Homes:
European Housing Culture from the Viking Age to the Renaissance (Aarhus), pp. 53-64.
Simpson, G. and Hatley, V., 1953 'An Excavation below Bishop Tunstall’s Chapel,
Durham Castle', Antiquaries Journal 33: 1-2, 56-64.
Smith, A. H., 1937 The Place-Names of the East Riding of Yorkshire and York,
English Place-Name Society 14 (Cambridge). Smith, C., 2016 'The Residences of the Bishops of Durham: Archaeological and
Historical Perspectives' (unpubl. MAR thesis, Durham University, Department of
Archaeology).
Smith, D. M., 1981 Guide to Bishops’ Registers of England and Wales: a Survey from the Middle Ages to the Abolition of Episcopacy in 1646 (London).
Thompson, M. W., 1995 The Medieval Hall: The Basis of Secular Domestic Life, 600-
1600 AD (Aldershot).
Thompson, M. W., 1998 Medieval Bishops' Houses in England and Wales
(Aldershot).
Tilley, C., 1991 A Phenomenology of Landscape (London).
Trifković, V., 2006 'Persons and Landscapes: Shifting Scales of Landscape
Archaeology', in Lock, G. and Molyneaux, B. L. (ed), Confronting Scale in Archaeology:
Issues of Theory and Practice (New York), pp. 257-271.
Walker, J. H., 2011 'Social Implications from Agricultural Taskscapes in the
Southwestern Amazon', Latin American Antiquity 10, 275-295.
Whitwell, J. B., 1984 'The Bishop of Durham’s Manor at Howden', Archaeological
Journal 141, 56-58.
Wickson, R., 2015 Kings and Bishops in Medieval England, 1066-1216 (London). Wienhold, M., 2014 'Spatial Analysis and Actor-Network Theory: A Multi-Scalar
Analytical Study of the Chumash Rock Art of South-Central California' (unpubl. PhD thesis,
University of Central Lancashire, Department of Archaeology).
Wilson, B. and Edwards, P., 1993 'Butchery of Horse and Dog at Witney Palace,
Oxfordshire, and the Knackering and Feeding of Meat to Hounds during the Post-Medieval
Period', Post-Medieval Archaeology 27, 43-56.
Wood, R., 2010 'The Norman Chapel in Durham Castle', Northern History 47: 1, 9-48.
Woolgar, C. M., 1999 The Great Household in Late Medieval England (New Haven and London).
Boldon Book Domesday Book Supplementary Volume 35, Boldon Book:
Northumberland and Durham, Austin, D. (ed.), History from the Sources (Chichester, 1982).
EEA 29 English Episcopal Acta 29: Durham 1241-1283, Hoskin, P. M. (ed.)
(Oxford, 2005).
Leland Itinerary (Hearne) The Itinerary of John Leland the Antiquary, Hearne, T.
(ed.), 3rd edn (Oxford, 1770).
Records Bek Records of Antony Bek, Bishop and Patriarch, 1283-1311, Fraser, C.
(ed.), Surtees Society, 162 (Durham, 1953). Register Fox The Register of Richard Fox, Lord Bishop of Durham 1494-1501,
Peers-Howden, M. (ed.), Surtees Society, 147 (1932).
Register Langley The Register of Thomas Langley, Bishop of Durham 1406-1437,
Storey, R. L. (ed.), 6 vols, Surtees Society 164, 166, 169, 170, 177, 182 (1949-79).
Registrum Palatinum Dunelmense Registrum Palatinum Dunelmense: The
Register of Richard de Kellawe, Lord Palatine and Bishop of Durham, 1314-1316, Hardy, T.
D. (ed.), 4 vols, Rolls Series (London, 1873).
Scriptores Tres Historiae Dunelmensis Scriptores Tres: Gaufridus de
Coldingham, Robertus de Graystanes, et Willielmus de Chambre, Raine, J. (ed.), Surtees
Society (London and Edinburgh, 1839).